Rising levels of ‘frustration’ at UN climate stalemate

Where have we heard this before? Obviously at every other UN climate meeting that tried to extort vast sums of money from unwilling donor countries, to pay for supposedly climate-related schemes. No wonder the USA walked away from the endless wrangling over a trace gas in the atmosphere.

Old divisions between rich and poor over money and ambition are again threatening to limit progress in UN climate negotiations, says BBC News.

Discussions between negotiators from nearly 200 countries have resumed in Germany, aiming to flesh out the rules on the Paris climate pact.

But developing countries say they are “frustrated” with the lack of leadership from the developed world. Commitments to cut carbon are still “woefully inadequate” they said.

2018 marks a critical stage in the global climate negotiations process. By the end of this year, governments will meet in Poland to finalise the so-called “rulebook” of the Paris deal, agreed in the French capital in December 2015.

This is seen as a key test.

The rules will define the ways in which every country reports on their emissions and on their carbon-cutting actions and, importantly, how they will increase these actions in the years ahead.

But while rich and poor countries united in Paris to push through the deal, significant ruptures have re-appeared in wrangles over key technical details.

The developed nations want almost all countries to share the same set of rules on how carbon emissions are measured, reported and verified. This issue, called “transparency” in the negotiations, has run into difficulties with many emerging economies arguing for more “flexibility”.

According to some observers, the richer countries believe that some in the talks are trying to turn the clock back to the time when only wealthier countries had any commitments to cut carbon, while developing countries including India and China had no obligations.

“The EU, US, and other developed countries are worried about the slow pace of negotiations on transparency and other elements of the Paris rulebook,” said Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“And what they see as the efforts of some developing countries to reintroduce bifurcation into the climate regime – an argument they thought had been settled in Paris.”

The developing nations are, in turn, incensed that enthusiasm for the $100bn per year in climate finance support from the rich, due to start in 2020, has started to wane.

Everyone figured the USA for the Fat Mark, slated to pick up most of the tab. Then that money, washed through “3rd World” corrupt hands was to end up back in Swiss Banks and spent on European “goods” and services (and junkets and villas and…) So the EU “contributions” would mostly be a recycling effort.

Then the USA said “No.” and walked away.

All the “3rd World” corrupt governments and “businesses” had their purchases (and playmates) all picked out, but the money did not come…

Now it’s dawning on the EU (and to lesser extent Australia & Canada ) that THEY are expected to fork over all the money; and a fair amount of it may end up in China, Macau, and “offshore banks”… (What with the EU demonstrating via that rape of Cyprus banks that they are not to be trusted)… so the EU have not been “expeditious” about handing over $100 BILLION.

That lack of shoving money by the $BILLIONS into 3rd World Corrupt Government Operators Banks is the lack of “leadership” being mentioned. (Hey, somebody, get busy leading the money parade!)

All I can say is Thank God For Trump canning that deal. Had felonious Hillary gotten the job, there would be big $Billions on the way and flowing (as long as a few of those $Billions when to Friends Of Bill, the Clinton Foundation, and Chelsea Lifetime Employment Fund…)

Think I’m being too harsh about 3rd world corrupt governments? See the map:

Incorrect Nick, Planck discovered an object radiates all frequencies at its thermometer temperature so the 396 is good (from an ~0.95 emissivity object) to read around ~288 to 289K (near surface global avg.) depending on the many annual (4-12) period studied. The object in question does not radiate at your stated net of 63, the opaque object radiates near 396/396 for an emissivity of near 1.